■\D 197 
1854 
2opy 1 



SPEECH 



OK 



/ 

HON. JOHN PERKINS, JR., 



OF LOUISIANA, 



OX THE 



TRANSFER TO THE STATES BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT 



A O MINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 



AV IT 11 IX THEIR LIMITS. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JOHN PERKINS, JR., 



OF LOUISIANA, 



ON THE 



TRANSFER TO THE STATES 



BY 



THE GExNERAL GOVERNMENT, 



©F THE 



ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 



WITHIN THEIR LIMITS. 






WASHINGTON: 4 

PRINTED BY A. O. P. NICHOLSON. 
1854. 



' 



^ 






SPEECH. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union — 

Mr. PERKINS rose and said: 

Mr. Chairman: Of all the great questions that have been discussed 
within these walls, no one has so deeply affected the legislation of the 
country as that of the disposition of the public lands. Like agriculture 
in our material interests, it is at the bottom, and has affected every 
other interest. In addressing the House in explanation of the substi- 
tute I have offered, I should feel great diffidence if I proposed more 
than to recall the views of those who have already discussed the sub- 
ject. Within the hour allowed me, I can only state principles and facts, 
and indicate, without arguing, their application. 

Mr. Calhoun once remarked to Chief Justice Marshall, who frequently 
repeated it in illustration of the mental analysis of the great South Caro- 
linian, that there were but two things to be considered in the formation 
of government — the organization and distribution of power. The force of 
this remark is especially felt in any attempt to discuss the policy or 
operation of our land system without first tracing it to its origin. From 
an insignificant agency under a clerkship of the Treasury Department, 
it has, with our increase of population and extension of territory, be- 
come a distinct brancji of the government, extending, in its various 
ramifications, into thirteen States of the Union, and exerting an influ- 
ence that, looking to the delicacy and importance of the interests af- 
fected, and the nature of our institutions, can find no parallel, except in 
the India Board, governing from London the immense territories of 
England in the East. 

It was looking at this great development in 1839, when we had 
only about three-sevenths of our present territory , that Mr. Calhoun said 
he was satisfied that the period had arrived when its entire revolution, 
as applicable to the States, was unavoidable. His words were : The 
States " have outgrown the system. Since its first adoption they have 
come into existence — have passed through a state of infancy — and are 
now arrived at manhood. The system which was wise and just at 
first, is neither wise nor just when applied to them in their changed 
condition." 

Mr. Chairman, what was originally this system? What its 

OPERATION? In WHAT IS IT DEFECTIVE? WHAT ARE THE REME- 
DIES PROPOSED ? Are THEY CONSTITUTIONAL AND EXPEDIENT ? 

The bill which I offer is directed rather against a vice of organiza- 
tion than of principle. It was first proposed in a resolution introduced 
into the Senate of the United States, in 1826, by Mr. Tazewell, of Vir- 
ginia ; it was indicated in the message of General Jackson, in 1832, 
and brought to the notice of the Senate by Mr. Calhoun, in 1837, in a 
bill almost identical in terms with the present one. 

In 1839, Mr. Calhoun advocated it in the Senate. In 1840, he se- 



cured a report in its favor from the Senate Committee on Public Lands, 
composed of Robert J. Walker, chairman ; Fulton, of Arkansas; Clay, 
of Alabama ; Prentiss, of Vermont ; and Norvell, of Michigan. In 
1841, Judge Young, of Illinois, again introduced it into that body, 
where, after discussion, there were eighteen votes in its favor and 
twenty-two against it. Among those voting for it I find the names of 
Allen of Ohio, Anderson, Benton, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Ful- 
ton, King of Alabama, Linn, Lumpkin, Mouton, Nicholson, Norvell, 
Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker of Missis- 
sippi, and Young of Illinois. 

Before explaining its provisions, it will be necessary to state briefly 
the history of the acquisition of the public lands, and the policy which 
has controlled their disposition. 

After the declaration of independence, and before the adoption of the 
articles of confederation, the disposition of the vacant lands in the West, 
claimed by the several colonies, became a subject of controversy. Ma- 
ryland, and other of the smaller States, contended that this unsettled 
domain, if wrested by the common blood and treasure of the thirteen 
colonies, should be "common property, parcelled out by Congress into 
free, convenient, and independent governments, in such manner and at 
such times" as Congress should determine. Maryland refused to ac- 
cede to the confederation, because this point was not yielded. The 
other States acceded, reserving their rights to these lands as common 
property. 

In March, 17S0, New York, to remove this dissatisfaction, tendered to 
the States her western lands ; and in the same year, Congress passed 
a resolution " earnestly" recommending the other States having like 
possessions to do the same ; declaring by resolve, on the 1 Oth October, 
"that the unappropriated lands" which should "be ceded or relin- 
quished to the United States by any particular State," should be " dis- 
posed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled 
and formed into distinct republican States," which should become mem- 
bers of the federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty and 
freedom, and independence of the other States;" the lands to be 
" granted or settled at such times and under such regulations" as should 
afterwards be agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. 

In March, 1781, the Maryland delegates signed the articles of con- 
federation ; and under this compact the union of the colonies was com- 
plete. 

The cession of New York was accepted October, 1782. One of its 
conditions was, that the lands ceded should "be and inure for the use 
and benefit of such of the United States " as should " become members 
of the federal alliance," and for "no other use or purpose whatever." 

In March, 17S4, Virginia's cession was executed and accepted. One 
of its conditions was, that the lands ceded should be — 

" Considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have 
become, or shall become, members of the confederation or federal alliance of the United 
States, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge 
and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no 
other use or purpose whatsoever." 

In 1785, '86, and '67, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina 
made cessions of their lands on similar conditions. 



Our present government was organized on 5th March, 17S9. The 
only allusion made to the public lands in the constitution was : 

" The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this 
constitution shall be so considered as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any 
particular State." 

North Carolina's cession of land was accepted in April, 1790, and 
Georgia's in June, 1802. These cessions, almost in the terms of those 
of Virginia, except that Georgia's omitted the clause, "according to their 
usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure," 
were, like those of all the other colonies, a response to the recommenda- 
tion of the confederation, and adopted by, and made binding upon, 
the government, to guard them as a common fund for the common ben- 
efit of all the States. 

In May, 1785, within a year after the cession by Virginia, and before 
that frum any other State, except New York, Congress passed an ordi- 
nance regulating the survey of the public domain, which is the basis of 
our present system. From this, it has been gradually built up by a 
long course of executive direction and congressional legislation. 

On the 18th May, 1796, Congress passed the first law for the sale of 
the public lands. 

The first land offices were opened at Cincinnati and Pittsburg. The 
price fixed was $2 per acre — one-half cash, the residue in one year. 
On the 10th of May, 1800, Congress extended the credit to one-fourth 
cash, the residue in four years. The credit granted induced excessive 
purchases, and in 1805 and '6, and at different periods subsequently up 
to 1820, Congress passed relief laws in mitigation of the system. In 
1S20, the present cash system was adopted, and the price reduced to 
$1 25 per acre. 

Appeals to Congress for relief now ceased. This was the first de- 
cided improvement in the system. 

After this, acts of pre-emption were, at various times, passed by 
Congress, but limited and remedial in their character, until the 4th 
September, 1S41, when our present prospective andgeneral pre-emption 
law was passed. This was the second great improvement in the system. 

A graduation bill, founded upon the exercise of the discretion a pro- 
prietor exhibits — discriminating in price according to the value of his 
hinds — I consider the third great improvement in the system, This, 
although often urged upon Congress as a constitutional and wise mode 
of disposing of the large tracts of nearly worthless land owned by the 
general government within the limits of the land States, has never yet 
become a law. A bill of this character, introduced by the gentleman 
from Alabama, [Mr. Cobb,] passed this House a few weeks since, and 
now awaits the action of the Senate. 

Such is the history of the original acquisition of the public 
lands by the general government, and their organization un- 
der our present land system. 

The machinery for their administration was inaugurated in the idea 
that the public lands were common property, pledged for the common 
debt, under the exclusive, but not unlimited, control of the general gov- 
ernment, and to be used for the common benefit. It acted upon them 



6 



as a surrender in the common interest, surrounded by the same checks, 
and to he disposed of subject to the same constitutional limitations, as 
the funds of the common treasury. Their management was placed 
under the Treasury Department; their proceeds paid into the common 
fund ; and, except in the discrimination imposed by a proprietorship in 
kind, rather than in money, the same principles were to govern their 
administration. ° 

Under these views, the machinery of the system has been developed 
from a single room in the Treasury Department, at an annual ex- 
ITfnor 18 ? 2 i 1 Washington , of $1,754 and throughout the country 
*4j7o5 26— total, including land offices and surveyors, $6,519 26— into 
a General Land Office, created in 1812, with a Commissioner, ap- 
pointed by the President, and elevated, in 1848, into almost a distinct 
branch of the government, under the Secretary of the Interior, at a 
cost, according to the estimate of this year, of $189,875 for the Land 
Office at Washington, and $342,640 for the other land offices and sur- 
veying departments— in all $532,515, exclusive of California. 

The land system began its operation upon the land in the 

Territories alone, amounting to 243,990,821 

Acquired from Virginia, New York, Mas- 
sachusetts, and Connecticut 158,660,299 

From Georgia 5g g9s'522 

From North and South Carolina 26,432,000 

And has extended to those since acquired, amounting to. . 1,165,389 741 

Acquired from France, 1804. . ; 751,363,501 

From Spain, 1819 37,931,520 

From Mexico, 1847 376,094,720 

Making in all 1 409 380 562 

within the Territories and thirteen States'o'f the" Union" " 

m It had in 1802, eleven employes throughout the Union. It has now 
in the Territories and thirteen land States 336 federal officers, operating 
upon interests purely local, and of the highest importance to the citi- 
zens of the fetates-all controlled by, and in direct correspondence 
with, the general office at Washington. 

isEf^U^n™ 111 ^^ 011 1 thei : e . had been s^veyed, up to June 30, 
13-o.j, o.Jb,2U*>,ob7 acres— leaving then unsurveyed, 1,073,177,975 
acres. 

( The expenses of all the branches of the government have increased 
in the same time, from $3,737,080 in 1802, to about $50,000,000 in 

The population of the United States, at the time of the system's or- 
ganization, in 1800, was 5,305,925; in 1850, 23,191,S76. 

The bill that I have offered as a substitute to the one be- 
fore the House, is in the idea that this system has become 
unwieldy; and from a development, unanticipated at its in- 
stitution, FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF ITS CREATION 

It proposes to take nothing from the present land system which ex- 



perience has shown to be valuable ; but freeing it of incumbrances, to 
make permanent its three great improvements, and render them more 
effective. 

It does not propose to sell or give away the public lands to the States 
within which they lie, but simply to transfer to them their administra- 
tion, on conditions highly just and equitable to all the States — insur- 
ing greater attention to local interests, contravening no mooted constitu- 
tional point, simplifying the system, curtailing executive patronage, and 
confining its operation, as originally, to the Territories. 

The amount of public lands within the States, (excluding Califor- 
nia, which has 113,682,436 acres,) the administration of which will be 
conferred upon the States, is 168,178,818 acres; the amount of public 
land in the Territories, upon which the present system will continue 
lo operate, is 864,069,170 acres. (See Table A.) 

Mr. Chairman, the vast importance of this public domain to the future 
interests of the country cannot be appreciated. While in Great Britain 
proper an equal distribution of land would give a little over two acres 
to each individual, in the United States it would give 105 acres. This 
is the great peculiarity of our country. It is our security, and a mag- 
nificent basis upon which to erect our future greatness. We should 
not hasten to destroy it, but leave its settlement and reduction to culti- 
vation to the operation of natural causes, aided by permanent laws. 

I HAVE SAID THE SUBSTITUTE I OFFER IS DIRECTED AGAINST A VICE 

of organization, and not of principle. I will be better understood, 
perhaps, if I say the evils of our present land system result chiefly from 
its organization. These evils will be best considered in connexion 
with the remedies proposed. 
What is the substitute ? 

Provisions of the bill. 

It provides for the cession of the public lands in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, 
and California, to these States respectively, on certain conditions. 

The said States are to pay into the United States treasury 75 per centum on the gross 
amount of their sales of such lands. 

"That the minimum price, as now fixed by law, shall remain unchanged until the 30th day 
of June, 1855 ; but, after that period, the price may be reduced by the States respectively, 
according to the following scale: all lands theretofore offered at public sale, and then remain- 
ing unsold ten years or upward preceding the 30th day of June, 1855, aforesaid, may be 
reduced by said States to a price not less than one dollar per acre ; and all lands that may 
have been offered at public sale, and remaining unsold fifteen years or upward preceding the 
said 30th day of June, 1855, may thereafter be reduced to a price not less than seventy-five 
cents per acre ; and all lands that may have been offered at public sale, and remaining unsold 
twenty years or upward preceding the said 30th day of June, 1855, may then be reduced by 
said States to a price not less than fifty cents per acre; and all lands that may have been 
offered at public sale, and remaining unsold twenty-five years or upward preceding the said 
30th day of June, 1855, may thereafter be reduced by said States to a price not less than 
twenty-five cents per acre; and all lands that may have been offered at public sale, and 
remaining unsold thirty years or upward preceding the said 30th day of June, 1855, shall be 
ceded immediately to the States in which said lands are situated: Provided, That all lands 
which shall remain unsold after haviug been offered at public sale for ten years, and which 
do not come under the above provisions, shall be subject to the provisions of pre-emption, 
graduation, and disposition aforesaid, at the respective periods of ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty- 
five, and thirty years after said sale, commencing from the expiration of ten years after the 
same had been offered at public sale." 

The lands are to be subject to the existing legal subdivisions, reserving for each township 
and fractional township the sixteenth section for the use of schools. 



8 

Land sold at public auction to be subject to entry for cash only, according to a fixed 
graduation. 

Acts of Congress in force at the time of the passage of this act to remain unchanged, unless 
modified by this act. 

Lands after private entry may be sold, at the option of the purchaser, in quarter-quarter- 
sections. This disposition of lands to the States shall be in full of the five per cent, fund not 
already accrued to any State — said State to be liable for all the expense of sales and manage- 
ment of said lands, and for extiuguishing Indian titles. 

On failure to comply with the provisions of this act, the cession of lands to any delinquent 
State to be void ; and all grants or titles thereafter made by any such State to be also void. 

After every reduction in the price of the lands by the States, as provided for, the State 
legislatures may grant to the settlers on such lands rights of pre-emption, to last for 12 
months, at such reduced rates ; lands not taken by settlers at the end of that time may be 
entered by any other person, until the next reduction takes place, when, if not previously 
purchased, they shall be subject to the right of pre-emption for 12 months; and so on, from 
time to time, as said reductions take place. 

The President to close the land offices, surveyor's office, &c, in any State included in this 
act, that shall, as provided, accept the provisions of this act; and the commissions of said land 
officers and surveyors to expire at a period not beyond six months after the time for the law 
to take effect. 

That from the passage of this act the States accepting the trasnfer under the terms offered, 
shall be relieved from all restrictions to tax any land by the authority subject to the sale 
thereof; and all maps, papers, books, and accounts, relative to said lands, now in the General 
Land Office at Washington, shall be subject to the order of the Executives of the accepting 
States. 

This was the bill us originally introrluced by Mr. Speaker Boyd. To 
this I have added two amendments. The first amendment is a proviso 
to the first section, and is designed to authorize the States to grant 
alternate sections of land for railroad purposes. It is as follows : 

" Provided, That the State may, on the payment of the price fixed by this bill for the land 
along any railroad line, indemnify itself for the grant of alternate sections of land to such 
railroad by disposing of the remaining sections along the line at double the price fixed by this 
bill." 

This amendment embraces the question of granting alternate sec- 
tions of land for railroads, and transfers the question to the States 
within which the lands are situated. 

It authorizes the States to grant alternate sections of land along rail- 
road lines within their borders, and indemnify themselves by disposing 
of the remaining sections along the line at double the price fixed by the 
bill. 

By it each State may grant, at its discretion, that aid to railroad in- 
terests within its borders that is now asked of the general government. 
Under its operation, the general government is guarantied by the State 
against any loss in the grant of alternate sections, and each State is 
made the judge, under the responsibility of a pecuniary interest, in what 
cases the grant should be made; for, as soon as a grant is made of al- 
ternate sections to any railroad, the State pays the regular per-centage 
that would be due, upon the sale of those lands, to the general govern- 
ment, and is reimbursed, as already stated, by the sale of the remain- 
ing sections at double price. The other amendment extends the time 
for right of pre-emption, in the second section, from ninety da}"s to 
twelve months, and is for the benefit of actual settlers. 

The lands in Territories are not affected by the provisions of the 

bin. 

Under this bill the railroad interest is amply protected, the general 
government is more than reimbursed the purchase and survey of the 
public lands, and relieved of an onerous and annoying agency in their 



9 

disposal, while the citizens of all the States are guarantied the advan- 
tages of a graduation in their price. 

The States are benefited by having settled within their borders all 
those annoying land claims and conflicting titles that come up to Wash- 
ington from all quarters, to be decided frequently upon imperfect tes- 
timony. 

Most of the western States have already State as well as federal land 
offices within their limits. Under this bill the State land offices will 
do the work of both. 

At present the general government pays to each State five per cent, 
upon the public lands within their borders, and the State cannot tax 
them for five years after they are sold. 

By the substitute this is reversed : the State pays a certain per-centage 
to the general government. The receipt of this per-centage by the 
general government is insured by the titles under the State being 
dependent for their legality upon its payment. 

In few words, it proposes to transfer all the lands within the States 
to the States in which they Vie, on two conditions : 

First, that the States shall dispose of them at $1, 75 cents, 50 
cents, and 25 cents, according as they have been offered for sale, ten, 
fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five years. 

Second, that the States pay to the general government 75 per cent, 
upon the net amount realized from their sale. This per-centage is to be 
paid quarterly as the lands are disposed of at the State land offices ; 
those remaining unsold at the end of thirty years to belong to the States. 

A GREAT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SUBSTITUTE IS, THAT IT CUR- 
TAILS Executive patronage. By its adoption 228 federal offices will 
be abolished and their duties imposed upon State officers. 

Mr. Calhoun, to whom it was given to detect danger to the constitu- 
tion before it was visible to most minds, and whose eloquence was but 
the earnest protest of the future against the present, once said that the 
greatest instruments of consolidation under our government were the 
land office, the currency, and the post office. 

The constitution, as originally interpreted by its framers, left the great 
mass of legislation to the States, and restricted the federal government 
to the management of foreign affairs, and a few internal matters. Yet, 
so disguised under a pride of national greatness has been the tendency 
to consolidation, that, insensibly, one power after another has been as- 
sumed until the general government, almost to the exclusion of the 
State governments, has made itself felt in all the relations of life. Its 
encroachments have been invisible, but constant. 

With the addition of each new State, the relative greatness of the 
general government has been increased, and that of the individual 
States diminished. With increased power to reward, its offices have 
become more valuable. 

The popular mind has associated increase of constitutional power 
with national development. Congress has absorbed nearly all the legis- 
lation of the country — its sessions increasing in length, while those of the 
State legislatures have become less frequent and shorter. 

Under the administration of Mr. Jefferson, in 1802, there were but 



10 

five heads of department : there are now seven. There were then 
but 3,806 federal officers : there are now in the employment of gov- 
ernment, throughout the country, 35,456. 

The adoption of the substitute will abolish 228 of these ; and, with 
advantage to the particular interests involved, transfer their duties to 
those of the States. (See Table B.) 

John Randolph, of Roanoke, speaking on this subject in the Sen- 
ate of the United States in March, 1826, said: 

" I wish that every new State had all the lands within the State, that, in the shape of re- 
ceiverships and other ways, these States might not be brought under the influence of this ten 
miles square. In other words, I wish that all the patronage of the land office was in the hands 
of the individual States, and not in the hands of the general government. I am the friend of 
State rights, and will cut down the patronage of this general government, which has increased, 
is increasing, and must be diminished; or we — the States — shall be not only ' shorn of our 
beams,' sir, but abolished quite." 

Mr. Van JBuren, in May of the same year, in the Senate, said: The 
public lands " had extended the patronage of the government over the 
States to a great extent," and " subjected" those in which they were 
situated " to an unwise and unprofitable dependence on the federal gov- 
ernment. No man could render the country a greater service than he 
who should devise some plan by which the United States might be 
relieved from the ownership of this property by some equitable mode." 
He would vote for a proposition on such terms. 

Jn 1830, Mr. Hayne, in the Senate, said : 

" More than one-half our time has been taken up with the discussion of propositions con- 
nected with the public lands, and more than one-half our acts embrace provisions growing 
out of this fruitful source." 

In 1839, Mr. Calhoun said the discussion about their disposition con- 
sumed one-third of the time of Congress. 

Mr. Speaker Boyd, in answer to an inquiry made by me, under date 
of May 21, 1854, says: 

" I state as my deliberate opinion that during the sixteen years I have served in Congress, 
at least one-third of the entire time of that body has been consumed in the consideration of 
questions connected in one form or other with our public land system." (See Appendix.) 

The Clerk of this House, Colonel Forney, in a note in reply to an 

inquiry on the subject, says: 

"Fifteen hundred columns of the Congressional Globe and Appendix for the Thirty-Second 
Congress are taken up with debates on public lands ; and the expense to the government 
incurred alone by the time consumed was $143,520." (See Appendix.) 

Again: this substitute not only reduces the patronage of 

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESULTING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
THE PUBLIC LANDS, BUT IT TAKES THEM OUT OF THE POLITICAL ARENA. 
A QUESTION PURELY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY WILL NO LONGER BE MADE 
ONE OF PARTISAN CONTROVERSY. It IS NON-INTERVENTION IN THE 
LOCAL INTERESTS AND POLITICS OF THE STATES. 

I desire to discuss this suhject upon elevated principles, and without 
appeal to party feelings. But I ask members if the disposition of the 
public lands has not been an element, on one side or the other, in all 
our political contests? It was directly connected with the great 
Hayne and Webster debate; and, after arraying in opposition the old 
and the new States, and embittering feeling at the North and the 
South, has ever since affected the regulation of the tariff. 

It was closely connected with all the financial measures of General 



11 

Jackson's administration, mixed itself up with his contest with the 
United States Bank, and became the suggestion of a change in the con- 
stitution. It has ever been associated with the discussion of the power 
of Congress to make internal improvements ; and now, when one after 
another of these questions have been settled or passed away, it re- 
mains with the subject of slavery to monopolize our time and embar- 
rass legislation. 

Is this never to cease? Having assisted to make and unmake Presi- 
dents for half a century, is it to continue a fund upon which individual 
members may draw to supply political capital for their districts? Has 
not the return of members to this House been made in a greater degree 
to depend upon the legislation of Congress upon this subject than upon 
any other ? Do not measures, objectionable in principle, ally them- 
selves with grants of land to force representatives to the alternative of 
a violation of their conviction of constitutional right, or a seeming an- 
tagonism to the interests of their constituents? 

I believe, sir, there is a general desire that .this should cease. I be- 
lieve it to be the feeling of the country, that the public lands should be 
disposed of, once for all — justly and equitably — to prevent improper 
combinations — to reduce the length of our sessions, and enable us to 
legislate on other matters. 

On the eve of Mr. Webster's first visit to Europe he was asked the 
object of his trip. His reply was, that, in addition to a desire to see 
the objects of natural interest, to one visiting the Old World, he wanted 
to get where he could see a man who had never made a bargain. I 
would not intimate that this expression was in any way associated with, 
or the result of, his political experience; but I may say, without reflection 
upon that great man, that the desire was by no means unnatural to any 
one who had been even a spectator of the legislation of Congress in 
reference to the public lands. 

On this point I will not enlarge. Sixteen years ago, in 1839, Mr. 
Calhoun, in speaking of the subject, said : 

" I ask not whether it would be wise to continue the old system. No, sir, a far bolder 
question — will it be practicable ? * * * 

" It is easy to see how this would end; the public domain, the noble inheritance of the peo- 
ple of this Union, would be squandered, or rather gambled away in the contest, and would 
thus be made at the same time the means of plunder and corruption, and of elevating to 
power, the most profligate and audacious." 

Has this prediction been realized? Let one of many years' experi- 
ence in this House, and yet in the counsels of the country, answer 
Three weeks since, speaking on a bill that has passed this House, Sen- 
ator Thompson, of Kentucky, said: 

"It seems to me, since I have had the honor to come to the national counsels, whether in 
this or the other house of Congress, the public lands have been bandied about eternally as a 
bribe in the shape of cession and retrocession, in the shape of graduation and of distribution, 
and of every imaginable project." 

Of all the interests of the country, Mr. Chairman, the land or agricul- 
tural should be least affected by, or dependent upon, legislation. Upon 
it rest all other branches of national industry, and its value should 
be controlled by laws uniform and permanent. It is bad enough that 
the commerce of the country should be influenced by measures purely 
political ; but trade partakes in some sort of the character of an adven- 
ture, and readily adapts itself to circumstances. Not so with land,- 



12 

The tiller of the soil may have a knowledge of chemistry, bnt he 
knows nothing of political chicanery. He watches the changes in the 
natural, not in the political elements, and looks to the ground, not to 
Congress, for his annual profit or the increased value of his land. And 
yet, if Congress issue twenty millions of land warrants as proposed 
by the bill of the gentleman from New York, or throw as many acres 
of land gratuitously, or at greatly reduced prices, upon the market one 
year, and none the next the price of every man's farm will be as vari- 
able as_ your commercial stocks. 

Sir, it you have the power, you have no moral right thus to subject 
the staid and sober interests of the home-staying hard-working farmers 
of the country to the fluctuations of your commercial, or the tidal 
movements of your political sea. 

Again: the substitute not only takes the PUBLrc lands out 

OP THE POLITICAL ARENA, BUT FREES THE LAND STATES FROM A HU- 
MILIATING vassalage. They have risen up out of the wilderness 
under a pledge given at the origin of the government, that they should 
be received into the Union with equal rights with the other States • 
and yet, they are now fettered by a system inflicting upon them all the 
evils of absenteeism. 

The lands of the sovereign of England may be taxed in the shire in 
winch they he, while those of the general government within the States 
are exempted and held for years at prices above their value, causing 
emigration to seek other localities. They, in fact, act upon the surface 
of the new fetates like the immense corporations of Mortmain, which it 
cost England a revolution to get rid of. 

By a calculation made (by Mr. Sumner) in the Senate of the United 
fetates, m 1S49, the land States, from a forbearance to tax the land, of 
the general government, after survey, have lost $72,000,000. How 
long will the idea of a paternity of the old over the new States, prevent 
a practical conviction in the popular mind of their entire equality? 

Dispose of the public lands within the States to the States in which 
they lie, under the terms of this bill, and you at once get rid of the 
embarrassing questions which constantly force the States to protest or 
memorialize against a proprietorship within their borders, which 
although it extend to half their limits, they can neither tax nor raise con - 
noutions from, for the general good, and which forces you to dole out 
to them the small pittance of 5 per cent, upon their sales. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I have other arguments in favor of this 

BILL, LESS GENERAL IN THEIR CHARACTER, BUT NOT LESS IMPORTANT 
AND WHOSE PRACTICAL FORCE MUST STRIKE EVERY ONE WHO HAS OB- 
SERVED THE PROGRESS OF LEGISLATION IN THIS HOUSE 

If the numerous causes which have attended, within 'the last twenty 
years, the unexampled development of this country, could be analyzed 
perhaps to no one would be ascribed so much importance as that of 
railroads North, South, East, and West, in all portions of the country; 
and by all classes, their advantages are appreciated. Your Atlantic 
cities have dug through mountains to extend them to the West- and 
stretching them along your rivers and across your richest agricultural 
regions, the humblest proprietor has not hesitated to contribute and 
has reaped a return in the greatly enhanced value of his land So 






13 

certain is this increased value of real estate along their line, that whole 
communities and States, looking to it as a result, have laid general 
taxes for their creation. In fact, it is now almost an acknowledged 
truth of political economy, and taxation for no other purpose is so 
popular. 

Under these circumstances, is there anything extravagant in the ex- 
pectation on the part of the States that the general government should 
contribute, like every other proprietor within their limits, to the con- 
struction of railroads enhancing greatly the value of the public do- 
main? The 5 per cent, upon the sales of the public lands within the 
States is now given them as a return, and in some sort acknowledg- 
ment of the benefit the lands of the government derive from the con- 
struction of ordinary roads. Is there anything so unreasonable in the 
call of the States upon the general government to make a similar return 
for the enhanced value of its land — the result of local taxation, that the 
humblest proprietor is made to pay — to justify the advocates of 
railroad grants before this House being regarded as speculators upon 
the public treasury, or to explain the repugnance with which some 
members listen even to the suggestion of such grants ? 

Sir, this repugnance springs from the vice in the organization of our 
land system, of which I have spoken. It is neither insensibility to the 
justice of this claim, nor a belief in the want of constitutional power, that 
creates this opposition with many, but an inability to decide upon in- 
terests purely local, and whose expediency must depend upon cir- 
cumstances and facts peculiarly liable to perversion. 

The bill I propose transfers the decision of these grants 
to the legislatures of the States. If the railroads seeking them 
deserve encouragement, and the alternate sections reserved will com- 
pensate in value for those granted, it will be best known to the legisla- 
tures of the States in which the lands lie, and through which the roads 
pass. The States lose nothing ; deserving railroads receive encourage- 
ment ; and in no event will the general government sacrifice a dollar. 

Mr. Chairman, on this point I may be pardoned for speaking with 
some earnestness. Under our present land system, railroads, pecu- 
liarly worthy of grants of alternate sections of land from Congress, 
without opposition at home, and supported by an unanimous delega- 
tion here, suffer from the multiplicity of similar but locally contested 
demands. Members of Congress, in their inability to examine each, 
and the impossibility of granting all these demands, feel a reluctance 
to grant any. 

Louisiana has suffered from this circumstance. The oldest, and in 
some sort the mother of all the States formed out of the territory pur- 
chased of France, west of the Mississippi river, she has never received 
an acre of land for railroad purposes, while the States on all sides of 
her have had grants. Having within her borders the mouth of the 
Mississippi river, through which flow all the waters of the west, and 
where its delta, gradually depressed to almost a level with the Gulf of 
Mexico, widens out to ten times its width in the States above — from the 
nature of her soil impassable by ordinary roads, and dividing from the 
Atlantic and Southern States the commerce of Texas and the West — she 
has now an application before this House for land for railroad purposes, 



14 



SeTiXVtitSslar 11 " 1 r e ° f theWeStem State,, 
capita] of her iSKnZ^Sj! ^cnptoon of one-fifth of the 

people along th^bTK^lihSlS K "^ ? their behalf 5 th « 
Mississippi fnd Texafon e^s de S su ^cnbed and the States of 

ders, ancfasking to be connected ^d vet <°h ? > g ' * ^ ^ 
urge these claims, deservbg o con^idljuon ™ 5? deh * tt '" cann <* 
countering a prejudice a Jl L?£ a T aS the y are > without en- 
facts too ur^TSt^ Wea ^ bg this House with 
merit of her demand. S enera % kl ««™. and yet constituting the 

liJss&SrfSras interest in this H ° use > what h - b -« 

Lan^ii 1 ^ ^: C ~"luZr b ;? re t Commktee » Pabb < 

created against its S? Th"C railed oill T * *"*?» **? 
jected to on grounds nurelv loll i! , • U P ro P os ed was ob- 

showthat itC an attempted fi;"] d M^rE^ des P atcheS -ad to 
bill in «™t» n f\\T a " em P tecl V aud - Mr. Chairman, I voted for thai 

posed on, and that it w J late after JXt™",* 1 " himSelf im " 
Congress, for it to be discovered W^T ?" tW< ? y<3arS before 
were going to vote to te S,'l 7 . tele # ra P h, u c "^patches, just as we 
the Hn,KP? £j„°T' beh , a . udul ent. But, what was the effect uoon 

tW^o"^ Lber wa' wS ZTT I* "^ " ills UTSffl 
merits, to a vote g tfUSt hs P art,cula f bill, whatever its 

was the only course left T h £ If Co P Jmittee ever be again called, 
But w, 10 can ^\J^^^ ^™^- 
be before the last month in the session? Wilfi be at S 
h2: th^^^T r^ ° f the — Merest in this 
member rise? o K, noTe l£T*T f ¥* **•' a " d when a 
laW possesses itfelf of foots "nd here J ^1^?^? by m " ch 
it because of its very accumu ation of facu iStr^T^f **"?* 

their roads, there ts at ZS^JSj&SL* ^ *~ 

Charleston. T ley wer'e' fill oHnfi r P ?°" * "?• late conv «"i°n at 
the enterprise of g So ith^^n °o" el ZZ "*F" i ""^' 1 *** 
ble and 'pleasant manners, 1 ?, ever' ~7 Z f^T ° f T^ 
upon this floor; and vet thou XT ih P • r - eqUal . of me mbers 
grounds in doing so, Lou d nevefintr^ Sat ' sfactloa f '°<» personal 
House without The fear he wnnll lntroduce u the m to a member of this 
about to be exerted PP ° Se there WaS a lobb y iafl «ence 



15 

This substitute is valuable for other reasons of much im- 
portance, AND TO WHICH I ASK THE PARTICULAR ATTENTION OF THE 

House. It will transfer to the States the settlement of that 
large class of contested land cases which now come before 

THE LAND COMMISSIONER IN THIS CITY FOR DECISION. It WILL REFER 

to the State legislature those numerous applications for 
special legislation regarding land titles which now embarrass 
this house, and to the state courts that immense amount of 
litigation which has been expensively prosecuted in the 
United States courts. 

A commissioner to settle claims of any kind is connected with no 
pleasing recollections in the popular mind; and were it not that the 
ability and experience of Mr. Wilson, the present land Commissioner, 
has relieved it in his case of odium, 1 believe the permanent existence 
of a commission at Washington, subject to Executive removal, for de- 
ciding, upon appeal from the different land registers in the States, cons 
flicting land rights between citizens and the government — not in open 
court, but in the retirement of his chamber — would be regarded as a 
monstrous solecism in our government. 

In its remoteness from the locality where the parties reside and the 
conflicts arise, and in the amount of discretion necessarily exercised 
by the Commissioner, it is, in principle, the Star Chamber of England; 
acting upon interests less important to be sure, but not the less sacred. 
As members from the old States may not be familiar with the nature 
and extent of these conflicting rights decided upon in the Land Office 
of this city, I will read a short extract from an interesting and well- 
written sketch furnished me by Mr. Wilson, of the Land Office : 

" The surveying system of the United States is marked by two distinctive characteristics. 
It operates first upon what is known as the 'public lands,' in contradistinction to the 'private 
land claims,' or foreign titles derived from the governments of Great Britain, France, Spain, 
and Mexico, and grants conceded to Indians in the various treaties of eessions between the 
United States and the several tribes since the foundation of the republic. 

"They grow out of the great variety of claims, such as the right to purchase under the laws 
of the United States ; to locate lands by military warrants ; for State selections under certain 
laws as swamp-lands ; also, in virtue of pre-emption privileges, for schools, universities ; and 
their interferences arise at times by reason of priority of title derived from the sovereignties 
which preceded us, and known as 'private land' titles. This class are of every imaginable 
variety, from a few hundred feet in extent as town-lots, increasing to 40 arpens, and thence up 
to tracts exceeding over a million of arpens each in extent, founded upon a variety of titles, 
such as inceptive or nascent grants, known as requettes, or permits ; orderB of survey from 
the authorities of the former governments ; actual surveys by such authorities, and titles in 
form or complete grants. 

" Before the Executive department can recognise these, it is required that they shall either 
receive the sanction of Congress by an express confirmatory law, or by a decree of the United 
States courts pursuant to law. To effect this, boards of commissioners have been instituted 
from time to time, from the year 1805 to 1835, to examine and make reports on all these va- 
rieties of title. Congress have also passed numerous laws confirming such titles, and leaving 
others unconfirmed; whilst other enactments have been passed shielding the unconfirmed from 
sale, and then, after the lapse of years, opening the district courts for their adjudication, with 
an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. * * * All such foreign 

titles as may be thus sanctioned or confirmed by Congress are to be surveyed. * * 

" When these surveys are returned to Washington city authenticated by the United State 
surveyor general, they are carried into grant at the General Land Office, and a perfect re 
cord kept of the same, and of all the proceedings from the first steps taken in the matter to 
its final consummation and delivery of title. The extent and intricacy of this business can 
scarcely be understood without an elaborate exhibit. The private land claims originating 
under the system may be summarily classified as arising from — 

" 1. Private entries, or sales of lands to individual purchasers, where they conflict with each 
other from the omission of the local officers to note the first sales on the maps or records. 



16 

orrth^^fSl'^^rm^r' * 8 bet ™^ claims to tie mme , ana 

«»M^i»»sais^ of i8i2 > «•■ »* «■» 

OntJ,' k- T, ?i atI0ns ' ands P e < J >"l grants of great variety." 

under your land system Jm? • Tesulte r d / rom conflicting claims 

now than tormtll-^^fT^^ of the feuds-less frequent 
Rvfar t k„ y amori g her citizens, have had in this their orio-m 

^JSisi^^oStari! z rece,Ve from c °^ = 

and the hardest labor tW T 1? k , 8 l eateSt P ort,on of m J ti ™> 

member of mflW his W ^ r PCrfb ™ since * have b een a 

And what, SX e ; the ^^V endln ? * ^T-^ ° f this d"*™** 

federal government has dnn» „ 1 ■ ' ( , S> D - and R -'P- 5 >) "The 

kinos of Sea ] w 6 n ° th , lng 1 t0V T ards settlin g Louisiana The 

ments' we™ made ^ "f„f T,l thVr'r i^ whi ° h its first ' se «>c- 
that State woXnowt a de Se , t ' " ^ g0Vernment has done, 

years she had been n the TTr/ k i u Louislana > ln the twenty-five 
population by ^mSS^^ ^^ «*«» h« 

^VjSftii^JP t^>? a ™' 0US Cha — of this 
words— f hit Ji"„ :'■ ™ er of g reat importance"— I use his 

locaf and offices IT^l^TT ^ ^ '"™ d 0ffice a » d *e 
puted land tTtfes" hou id T XSw £& n W ecidin S "P° n dis " 
was resisted as oo exoensL t. ,h " , e Umted States court ! but it 
sir, in 1844, C«^C*li£d fr om "^rested. _ And yet, 
tested cases within Louisiana t„ 1 TV,k 8 &t accu .mulation of con- 
gave jurisdiction Tthe Un ,^'q, , T * Course - in a law which 
land claims TI c. • States dlst nct court for five years of -ill 

BrifisfamLritLs 6 . *" "V"** W « h ekher the Sp-^, French, or 

liefof^Taima^rhariirL , % W * M ° f biHs for the * 
under the substitute £ offered TbyXs, J*, e 9f fition ^ P"** 
I cannot, until after mSS^'J^^^g^j. and wbi <* 
present Ibr consideration. S ° f your House ' eve « 

On this point, the Commissioner of the Land Offle» »«n 
would have been economy in the fir t JtflJ e r te ° S me : " !t 

chased anew their landTfmm the S ° f L ? n ™ a ™ to have pur- 

eed the expend Kw^fiffi^ "** *" » h "* * 

H&3*K5 zsmes? as to get them ^ — 

■2^3%*°^- ^ ^ d Claims ( M, 

when they will again be called." (See Appendix ) rebruar - v > and he does not know 



J 



17 

The chairman of Private Claims (Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio,) writes 
me, that during the 32d Congress there were referred to his committee 
four hundred and forty-two cases ; a very small number of which were 
ever reported to the House for action, by reason of the time for reports 
being consumed for a great part of the first session by the Committee 
on Public Lands. 

" The precise time I do not recollect, but believe it to have been nearly five months. I 
think the Committee of Claims was not called for reports after the 1st March in the first 
session of the 32d Congress. A large number of cases have been acted upo*n by this com- 
mittee during the present session of Congress. The number now ready to be reported is 
eighty-four ; but the committee has not been called since February, and probably will not be 
for months " (See Appendix.) 

Are you disposed to bring our Pacific States under this system, when, 
from the peculiarities of their laws and settlements, they will have even 
more than a proportionate number of claims of this character? Will 
there not result a total denial of justice ? 

Mr. Chairman, I ask if members are prepared to apply this system to 
the distant States that are coming into existence on our Pacific coast? 
Will the members from California, who guard so carefully the interests 
of their State, agree that their constituents should send half round the 
globe to have rights as sacred as those arising under our land system 
determined by a land commissioner in this city ? Will their constitu- 
ents acquiesce ? 

To my mind, the grandest spectacle of the age is the gradual growth 
of the colonies along the Pacific coast into free and independent States, 
received into this Union on an equality with those on the Atlantic. On 
looking back a little more than a century, to the first feeble settlements 
on our eastern shore, and then, from the stand- point of our present 
national greatness, forward into the future, at the spread of civilization 
and art, and the growth of towns, cities, and commerce, along our 
western shore, the mind is by turns awed and dazzled by the vision. 
The Roman poet, taking his hero to a point from which he could view 
the successive generations of his nation spreading out into all the great- 
ness of the Roman empire, describes him as shedding tears over the 
ills that he saw were to befall them. In our case, if we are wise, there 
is no such cause of sadness. 

The unseen but ever-operating influence of law, properly guarded, is 
the security, at the same time that it is the most beautiful result, of our 
institutions. In a popular government, where all power comes of the 
people, reverence for it is a high moral manifestation. It is free will, 
self-controlled. It has the majesty of power, self-limited ; and, like 
force in nature, or labor in art, it is at the bottom of, and creates, and 
is, as it were, the breath and being of our national existence. Regard- 
ing it in this light, I deplore anything that weakens its respect. 

I will not enlarge on this point ; but, familiar with the character and 
the hardy virtues of the men living on the frontiers of our distant land 
States, who are to be affected in their rights of pre-emption, settlement, 
and the like, which, as self-created, and born of adventure in the woods, 
are cherished with an enthusiastic devotion, I much fear you are im- 
posing upon them a system that will prove expensive and oppressive, 
2 



18 



and that, failing of advantage to the eovernmpnt ™;n l j • 

only of litigation and bloodshed. S overnm ent, will be productive 

The substitute I have offered nmnoonn + »•■--, 

i. 1HAT THE BILL OP THE GENTLEMAN FROM Npw Y™,^ t„ 
FOR GIVING TO THE OLD STATES ^EPIP^ttv ** PROV1D ES 

CEEDS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS w^ttI PORTION OF THE PRO- 

THE PROCEEDS ABOVE THB E ^Z ^ SCBSTIT UTE PROVIDES THAT 
BE PAID INTO THE COMMON TREA SU RV '^7""™ *»^ 

collectively, and no, £ffl tolv tt ^ COmmon /™d" of the States 
that their S2Kffi&S2S i£gfoK^^ 

and expenditure " rpfprr^rl t^ ^k Q j ^^umgiorne usual charge 

power over the territory like other nrorJ* v Lw? g T? Con gress 
the cession to have been General S y ,V evidences the intention of 
sion, "usual charge and elZdTtu're" in S' ' ^T" °/ ^ ex P les " 
subsequent to this Sd tt „ L r ^^ ^ Geor « ia ' made 
as that of Virginia^ri afo^of £ aT^wS /T T& 
quire what equitable right the old States Ln , t * St ° P t0 ln " 

the public lands in fhf L™ £ , if • U ,' ge U P on the Proceeds of 
tained niost of thflands wiThin 21' M^ themselves ™gi«a% ob- 
Phed their proceldsf oSS2rt tS&T^Sd f *"- 

tt prtenT .r £v^^^ 

annL revenuTiThf SS of l^aT *** ** «** a » 
1 ne public lands cannot be apportioned in Idnrl tu 

for that representation and taxation are not correla ive unTr riJ ' 

application to particular State institutions ? d am ° Unt ° f their 

is olW sc'^yl&^n 86 / " f " eral P ° Wer of the constitution 
tional ^^T^'S&i^^'S 1 ^ f an UnC ° nSti,U - 
that instrument is by special Lr^t Wh ' ?"?- ' that P ? Ver under 
of general power A Tft>r P nf n A \ • restnct,ons »pon the exercise 
eff&t to chCe Jhett ™rof ***«*>*" ™ uld «ave the 

1 unlimited, lor as the constitution speaks of "territory" 



19 

and "other property" of the United States in the same clause, the in- 
struments and agencies of government, and the funds in the common 
treasury, would be, equally with the public lands, under its control. 

But ot the lands ceded by the States few now remain. Those 
upon which the system is henceforward to operate were acquired either 
by purchase or conquest, and any argument, therefore, founded upon 
teims of original session is without application. 

Waiving, however, the constitutional argument, and regard- 
ing it merely as a matter of expediency, I contend, in the words 
of the able report of the chairman (Mr. Disney) of the Committee on 
Public Lands of this House, that " no more expensive mode could 
be devised to support local institutions than to make the federal gov- 
ernment the agent to raise and distribute the means. With the Slates 
lies the power necessary for their management and economical admin- 
istration. Supported by means raised by the authority of the State, 
no injustice can be inflicted upon the people of other States. State 
provision, as between the States, would be just from necessity, and 
from interest it would be economical." 

If it is desired to secure to the citizens of the old States the benefit 
of these lands, in no way can it be so effectually done as under the 
provisions of this substitute. Whatever the States through the general 
government have paid out for these lands will be returned into the 
general treasury, and reducing taxation to the amount of their sale will 
be a common fund for the support of the general government. 

Whatever benefits the settlers upon the public lands are to derive 
from this bill will be shared by the citizens ot all the States in propor- 
tion as they choose to avail themselves of them. The States in which 
the lands lie cannot appropriate them in payment of their debts, or 
grant peculiar advantages of purchase or ownership to their own citi- 
zens. They are to administer them, but without power to discriminate 
in price or pre-emption, against the citizens of other States. One State 
cannot have one price and terms of sale, and another State different ; 
the system will act uniformly in all. The States cannot even purchase 
them from the government, and sell them at a higher price. They can 
purchase at the price fixed, but must also sell at the graduated price 
in the bill, except in the case of lands along the line of railroads, alternate 
sections of which may be disposed of at double price ; but even in that 
case conditioned that the remaining sections are granted for the con- 
struction of the road. 

Here, Mr. Chairman, I meet the objection that the effect 
of a graduation in the price of the public lands draws off to 
the West the wealth of the Atlantic States. 

It is true that the centre of population and wealth in this government 
is going west, and with it that of federal representation. It has been 
estimated that the wave of civilization rolls w r est at from 13 to 17 miles 
a year. According to a calculation of Dr. Patterson, of Philadelphia, 
as published in De Bow's Review, the federal centre was, in 1790, 
Baltimore county, Maryland, 46 miles north and 21 east of Washing- 
ton ; in 1800, Adams county, Pennsylvania, 64 miles north and 30 west 
of Washington; in 1820, Morgan county, Virginia, 47 miles north and 
71 west of Washington; in 1830, Hampshire county, Virginia, 43 miles 



20 



sassr i^KRssfii** M - ion -* v ^«- 

increased velocity. In lS50rh P °,L, T . f ch year movin g with 

has now crossed It. Wod ™ cX thk r?"^ 6 ° hi ° ^ II 
an early period of our histoid hi » . • Slr ,' " Was tempted at 

should be sold townshir ,bv III P'ovismn that the public lands 
until the last was so 7 t&° additional one to be offered 
only beyond your surveys but bevL feS Po P u,atio » ™. not 

Michigan, Wisconsin and Tol- J } P^^ions. First Illinois, 
to Louisiana, Florida and Te-, E™ 'T ™ DCe; then, in addition 
gon, Utah, and New^Meio havlcomf • f 5 ^-T C ? Ufornia ' ° re - 
you have been even able Extend t,^ P ° 1 ? cal exisle "ce before 

But, sir, white this Uut 2f f thet ? your land s y ste m. 

that Alis 0ni the h;stori l0 ™; C p LL the eff^' ™% ■* ""'^^ 
of the Old World telk ,' l!i P • e effete and lnert systems 

awe of the march of a tre.t n & / " so ™ th ™g of the solemnity and 
curse. Its p'ogres hS &¥ h \ S left behind " ™ withering 
scattering jewefs on its path Th7 V ' that ° f a " ° riental m ° Dar <£ 
not the dismantled apl™! ^ "T 8 °, n y our Atlant ic coast have 

diminished co m ZZ P TtehZtf £ 1* ^t" 8 P ° pUkti ° n 0r of a 
workshops, nor grass grownup thlir^C^" °? C "" d * ** 

to ^hSSSSTftjg S° feel ? 7"? ^ ** **» » P 

cent prairies have become ihJ = T i J r a " 8 of broads, its magnifi- 
sir, envy the West! is : wel Sff y ° Ur Atlan tic cities. The East, 

callous to the scenes of m «i, onsprmg. When man becomes 

spot where' repose the ™'n, Ft™* With Sensibility over the 
then, may the East have cause of ", ancesto ™' then, and not till 
the West. CdUSe of J^ousy, or look with envy upon 

become well nigh insensible ?o fb^f! 1 l ' he West ' that they have 
along by the sfme ^^^17' l °°' ^ bee " borne 
returns, that in the ten years fromS'to IsloT'"' ^ ^^^ 
m the income of the inhabit™?* „f ?! TT ,' there waSan increase 
cent.; that from all sources "Lt V ,T d Slate8 > of 32 A per 
that for 1S40, C^SSfiSS^' ^ *** • 1 '«0,000,o£> ; 

tween t e he r, °oldrd tt i^w S Hm t ^ ^ *""*""* "- 

property income of the old States as a LI t S * " 1Crea8ed Vldue of 

The value of property iX i ' •' a PP rox ™ate a result. 

1840, 43 per cen^ fflslo to 1850 ^i ' nCreaSed ' fr0ra 1830 t0 
In 1840, it was... S50, nearI J r 10 ° Per cent. 

In 1850, it was " $299,SS0,33S 

597^936,995 

A similar increase in wealth rrnol,t u n i ■ „ 

Island, and Connecticut; ^falo ffiVttc cuieT" ^ "^ | 



21 

The value of property in Philadelphia increased between 1840 and 
1850, 3 per cent, a year, or 30 per cent, in 10 years. 

The value of property in Baltimore between 1840 and 1S50 increased 
over 43 per cent. 

From these data (and they could be extended south, through Virginia, 
to Georgia) it is evident that the old States have, in the last ten years, 
advanced in wealth proportionately with the new. 

How has it been in population ? By the census returns for 1850 it 
appears the rate of increase of population in the whole United States 
was — 

From 1840 to 1850 35 per cent. 

That of the twelve land States, viz : Ohio, Indiana, Missis- 
sippi, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, 

Arkansas, Florida, Wisconsin, and Iowa 57 " 

That of the thirteen old States 24 " 

That of Great Britain and Ireland 2 " 

That of England and Wales 12 per cent. 

That of Scotland 10 " 

That of Ireland, (decrease) 20 " 

That of France 4 " 

That of Belgium 9 " 

That of Prussia 10 " 

These, figures give no indication of decay on the part of the old 
States. On the contrary, when you look at the nativities of the citizens 
of the land States, their growth is seen to be in fact that of the old 
States. 

From tables appended to these remarks, it will be seen that while, 
in the last ten years, the old States have advanced in population one 
hundred per cent, faster than the most flourishing of the European 
States, they have contributed of their citizens to the population of the. 
land States in the proportion of more than one-fourth to their native 
population. New York, the State of the gentleman [Mr. Bennett] 
who introduces this bill, under a seeming sense of special wrong done 
his State, furnishes one- fourth to that contribution. (Table C.) 

But this is not all. If you take the nativities of representatives in 
this House as an indication of the proportion in which the natives of 
the old States will participate in the benefits of the public lands lying 
within the land States, tne result is still more striking. 

Of the 234 members now composing this House, the thirteen old 
States, including among them Vermont and Maine, have, by represent- 
ation, 134 — the thirteen land States, 78 ; that is, while, by our basis of 
representation, the old States have more than one-half, (i¥o,) and the 
land States one-third of the House, by nativity the old State's have 191 
members, and the land States but 15 ; that is, the old States have 81 
per cent., and the land States have only 6. 

Under these circumstances the old States can never have reason to 
complain of injustice in the legislation of the country. 

But, sir, I must hasten on. Is the percentage to be paid 

BY THE LAND STATES UPON THE SALE OF LANDS WITHIN THEIR LIMITS 
ADJUSTED IN THE BILL SO AS TO RECONCILE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJEC- 



22 



TIONS, AND WITHOUT BEING A GIFT OR A SALE OP THE LANDS, TO RE- 
LIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROM EXPENSE IN THEIR ADMIN1S- 

™»I I0N ' SECUKE INDIVIDUAL ^TEREST, AND AT THE SAME TIME 
IMPOSE NO ONEROUS CONTRACT UPON THE STATES? 

In the bill similar to this, introduced into the Senate in 1837, it was 
proposed that the States should pay over only 33J per cent. By the 
bill of Judge Young, of Ilhnois, introduced in 184lf it was proposed 
they should pay over 65 per cent, of the gross amount. In ffi he 
amount at 75 per cent in the present bill, the calculation has been made 
upon a basis intended to be strictly just towards the general govern- 
ment, the States, and to individuals. govern 

faSSKX^ **"*'*" **** b ^ *&* than in 

fj; I here arC n °7 [ ewer] ™ ds ""surveyed in the States, and there- 
lore the expense of their administration will be less 

2. In nearly all the land States there are now State land offices or 
agencies created for the sale of lands donated to the States by the gen- 
eral government, and the additional expense of administering the re- 
maining lands within their limits will be slight. 

3. I desire, that the bill should meet the constitutional views ofgen- 
tf^ onb , oth . sldes f °[ th f House, and operate simply as a transfer of 

the administration of the lands to the States in which they lie, and not 
as a donation or sale. J 

The elements of the calculation upon which the per-centage is fixed 
at 75 per cent., I will state in a few words : 

The average cost of the public lands, according to the 
calculation of Commissioner Wilson (Report of the Gen- 
eral Land Office for 1853, page 47) is, per acre 14.41 cents. 

Cost of surveying 2 07 „ 

Cost of selling and managing 5 ' 3 o u 



Equal to, per acre 21 



SO 



(( 



Calculating it at 22 cents per acre, if the lands sell for 
$1 35 per acre, which is the average price, the public 
lands brought into the United States treasury, up to 
June 1, 1849, (Commissioner Young's Report for 1848, 
appendix, page 555,) the per-centage to reimburse the 

general government would be 16 j percent 

If sold for $1 25 per acre, the per-centage would be . . . 17^ " 

li sold for $1 per acre, the per-centage would be 22 " 

If sold for 15 cents per acre, the per-centage would be"." 30 
If so < for 50 cents per acre, the per-centage would be 44 
If sold for 25 cents per acre, the per-centage would be. . 88 

Applying this to the actual position and amount of the 
public domain, the total area of public land States 
(exclusive of California,) is 381,115,470 

ine total number of acres remaining unsold in the 
land States, (exclusive of California,) on the 30th 
June, 1853, is 168,178,S18.48 



23 

The average length of time the land States (excluding 
California) have been in the Union, is within a frac- 
tion of thirty years ; and within that period there has 
been sold 103, 197,356 xVo acres, and disposed of for 
schools, internal improvements, individuals and com- 
panies, seats of government, military services, sa- 
lines, Indians, &c, &c, &c, 104,194,722 1 - - acres; 
making a total of. 207,392,079 

Or sixty per cent, of the whole. 

Thirty years being the average time that the lands within the States 
have been offered for sale at $1 25 per acre, if we estimate that the 
States, under the operation of the graduation prices of the bill, which 
is a very fair calculation, will dispose of an equal proportion of the 
public lands within the next thirty years, and that being the period 
at the expiration of which the lands remaining undisposed of are to be 
relinquished to the States, there will have been parted with in that 
time, 100,970,290 acres. Under the graduating process, these 100,907,- 
290 acres are to be sold at prices ranging from $1 25 to 25 cents per 
acre, (the average rate of the bill,) and will bring $75,680,468. 

It is proposed that the land States pay to the general 
government 75 per cent, of the gross proceeds of the 
sales of those lands, which will amount to $56,760,351 

Deduct the cost of the lands to the United States — say 

168,178,818 acres, at 16£* cents per acre 27,749,505 

Leaving a profit over and above cost to the U. States of. . 29,010,846 

The share of the States in the gross amount sold, being 25 

per cent, of $75,680,468, is $1S,920,117 

Deduct for selling, managing, and surveying 100,907,290 

acres, at seven centsf per acre 7,063,510 

Leaving a profit over and above cost to the land States of 11,856,607 

The number of acres remaining unsold at the end of thirty years, 
relinquished to the States in which they lie, will be 67,371,528 acres. 

From these calculations it appears — on the basis of the graduation 
price in this bill, the same as that in the bill recently passed, and 

*This 16£ cents is made up of— Cost «. 14.41 per acre. 

Survey 2.07 " 

16.48 " 
which the government has expended, and would be entitled to be repaid, if it had surveyed all 
the lands ceded. 

tThe federal government has not surveyed all the lands ceded ; therefore this 

seven cents is made up of — Survey 2.07 cents. 

Sale and management -• 5.32 " 

7.39 " 
that the calculation may be perfectly fair, both to the States and the general government. 



24 

the estimate of the land office of 22 cents per acre for cost of survey, 
sale, management, &c, of the public lands — that when lands are 
sold at — 

$1 25 per acre, the per-centage of expense is 18 per cent. — net yield 82 



When at 


1 00 


n 


75 


<i 


50 


« 


25 



22 


<( 


78 


29 


it 


71 


44 


it 


56 


88 


a 


12 


201 




299 



The expense averaging about 40 per cent., and the net yield 60 per 
cent. 

In fixing, therefore, the per-centage at 75 per cent, the federal gov- 
ernment, besides getting rid of the vexatious questions attending the 
administration of the public lands, will receive in cash into the trea- 
sury 15 per cent, more from their sale, under the provisions of this 
bill, than under the present system. 

so much for the general government. hoav will it effect 
the States? 

1st. The States will gain $11,856,607 above their expense in ad- 
ministration of the lands within their limits. 

2d. The transfer, at the end of thirty years, of the lands remaining 
unsold, estimated at 67,271,528 acres. 

3d. The right to tax land as soon as sold, in getting rid of the 
exemption from taxation of government lands for five years' after sale. 

4th. They will secure all the aid in the construction of railroads 
within their limits which is now vainly sought for from Congress. 

5th. The rapid sale and settlement of the lands within their limits, 
and the adjudication of all contested entries and disputed land titles, 
by their own legislatures and before their State courts. 

6th. They will be freed from that species of vassalage arising from 
a large portion of their territory being held by the general government, 
and the subject of Executive influence and patronage, within their 
limits. 

But, sir, it must be remembered that while this bill tenders these 
advantages to the States, its passage by this House does not impose 
upon them their acceptance. By its terms, it offers merely their accept- 
ance, giving a year within which the States may accept or not the ad- 
ministration of their lands. Is there a representative on this floor who 
will take upon himself the responsibility of denying to his State legis- 
lature the right of deciding this question ? If some States accept, and 
others do not, to that extent the advantages we have described will 
result, and the present system will continue to operate exclusive of 
them, as it now operates exclusive of Texas, which in coming into the 
Union reserved the control of its own lands. 

But, sir, will the Sates pay over this per-centage to the 
government ? 

Upon this poin^ I will say — 

1st. The States have already compacts with the federal government, 
relating to their lands : have they in one instance disregarded them ? 

2d. As the advantages securec them under this bill are greater than 
those hitherto possessed, there is every inducement to its observance. 



25 

3d. The federal government now pays over to the land States 5 
per cent, upon the sales of the public lands within their limits. Will 
not the general government have the same power to enforce this per- 
centage from the States that the States have now from the general gov- 
ernment ? 

4th. But, sir, the bill provides a perfect guarantee, apart from all 
these considerations, for the payment of the per-centage, in the clause 
which provides that on the failure of a State to perform any of the 
conditions of the cession, the patents issued by its authority are void. 
Every citizen within the State is thus made individually interested in 
his State's payment of the per-centage, and any failure on their part 
to do so would be in the nature of an agent's failure to fulfil a trust. 

And nov/, Mr. Chairman, as to the propriety, I may say neces- 
sity, FOR THIS CHANGE IN OUR LAND SYSTEM AT THIS TIME. We have 

traced the origin and development of the system from its insignificant 
existence under a clerkship in the Treasury Department, to a well- 
nigh independent branch of the government, extending over and affect- 
ing questions of most difficult adjustment directly connected with in- 
terests the most important, and yet the most delicate, that can arise 
between citizens and the government; and the question presented for 
our decision is not between its entire abolition and. the adoption ol a 
new system, but simply its modification in a way thai will restrict it to 
the original purpose of its creation. 

It began operating alone within the Territories ; the different States 
having their own land offices. It now extends into thirteen States, 
and is about to go into operation in all the immense regions west to 
the Pacific. Bylaw you have already extended it over, but as yet no 
lands have been surveyed and returned as sold in California, New Mex- 
ico, Utah, Nebraska, or the Northwest. 

The Commissioner in his report says : " When the action of this 
office shall be required on the claims " in those regions, " the business 
of this bureau will be much more onorous ;" "the buildings" are 
even now "insufficient," and " additional" clerks' salary necessary. 
There were, in the past year, 43,500 letters received, registered, ex- 
amined, and recorded in his office ; making thirty large folio volumes. 
The responsibility for the pxpper transaction of the business connected 
with all these letters now rests entirely with him. 

Is it possible for any one man to meet this responsibility with 
satisfaction either to himself or the interests involved ? In 1848, Robert 
J. Walker, the then Secretary of the Treasury, speaking of the onerous 
character and increasing number of questions coming up on appeal to 
him for decision from the Land Office, said : " I have pronounced judg- 
ment in 5,000 cases involving land titles since the 10th March, 1845;" 

" Numerous and complicated questions are constantly arising in the private laud claim bu- 
reau of this office, with reference to the rights of parties, and the correct location of their 
claims. The records in many cases are so voluminous as to require days, and even weeks, 
simply to read them. To select and array the facts from snch records, and to apply them to 
the acts of Congress, with reference also to the laws and usages of the governments with 
whom they originated, requires sound judgment, great care, and a thorough knowledge of 
every matter connected with the business. These cases are daily becoming more important 
from the great increase in the value of the property affected by them." 



26 

an average of 1,333 per annum. On the same point the Commissioner 
of the Land Office, in his recent report, says : 

The Secretary of the Interior, speaking of the same accumulation of 
business in the Land Office, says the Commissioner has been compelled 
" to crowd eight or nine clerks," besides " desks, furniture," &c, into 
a single room where more than two clerks cannot be conveniently ac- 
commodated ; and "files and papers" have so rapidly increased that 
many cases of valuable papers have of necessity been placed in the 
passages, without proper " security from fire." " The Secretary of the 
Treasury," he continues, " requires the rooms now occupied by the 
Land Office," and has " made pressing application " for them. 

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached a period when either a great en- 
largement or entire reform of our land system is necessary. Adopt the 
substitute I have offered, and the General Land Office will be re- 
stricted in its operations to the Territories ; the pressing accumulation 
of its business will be remedied ; its expenses curtailed ; and the evils 
described by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Interior removed. 
The general government will be relieved from legislating upon a most 
embarrassing subject; Executive patronage will be curtailed ; and the 
land States, freed from the pressure of government possessions within 
their limits, will be less dependent upon Congress. Local taxation will 
fall equally upon all; railroad interests will receive judicious aid; and 
land proprietors in the new States obtain a speedy settlement of their 
claims. The sessions of Congress will be shortened ; a great element 
of strife removed from its discussions; and opportunity afforded for 
legislation upon other subjects. Other influences, too, are favorable. 
We are on the eve of no Presidential election ; the public lands are 
now under discussion in both branches of the legislature; the veto of 
the President has attracted attention to the subject, and there is a gen- 
eral disposition to adopt some mode of administering them that will 
be final in being both just and constitutional. 



27 

APPENDIX. 

A. 

Statement showing the amount of public lands unsold and u?i appropriated, of 
offered and unoffered, up to June 30, 1853, in the following States, which 
includes all the land States. 

Acres. 

Ohio 244,196.08 

Indiana 246,339.41 

ttlinois 4,115,969.97 

Missouri 22,722,801.41 

Alabama 15,049,693.70 

Mississippi 9,083,655.94 

Louisiana 9,134,143.81 

Michigan 16,142,293.48 

Arkansas . 15,725,388.33 

Florida 29,262,674.59 

Iowa 22,773,175.57 

Wisconsin .. 23,678,486.19 

California 113,682,436.00 

281,861,254.48 



[Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1853, 1st session 33d Congress, 
page 45.] 



Statement showing the amount of public lands unsold and unappropriated, of 
offered and unoffered, up to June 30, 1853, in the Territories of the United 
States. 

Acres. 

Minnesota Territory 85, 225, 601 

New Mexico Territory 127,383,040 

Utah Territory 113,589,013 

Oregon Territory , 116,259,698 

Washington Territory . 78,737,578 

Nebraska and Kansas : 

Nebraska Territory 219,160,320 

Kansas Territory .« 80,821,120 

Chah-lah-kee Territory 17,715,200 

Muscogee Territory 343,274,240 6,048,000 

Chah-ta Territory 19,129,600 

864, 069, 170 



[Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1853, 1st session 33d Congress, 
page 45. Corrected and revised at the Land Office June 3, 1854.] 



Public lands. 

Acres. Acres. 

Areas of land in States and Territories exclusive of water 1 , 391 , 480, 320 

Of which there has been surveyed up to June 30, 1853... 336, 202, 587 
And unsurveyed, (estimated) - ...1,055,277,733 



• 



28 

Acres. 

Ofthe amount surveyed 336,202,587 

There has been offered for sale up to June 30, 1853... 316,278^804 

Leaving of the surveyed, unoffered for sale 19, 923, 783 

Of the amount offered for sale up to June 30, 1 853 316, 278, 804 

There has been sold to that date 103, 197,356. 35 

Land in the States yet undisposed of by the general gov- Acres. 

ernment subject to entry June 30, 1853 94, 746, 032 

Amount of land in the States unsold and unappropriated 

of offered and unoffered lands, in June 30, 1853 281,861,254 

If lands in California be subtracted, it will leave 168, 179, 818 



Areas of land in States and Territories exclusive of water 1, 391, 480, 320 

Which has been disposed of as follows — 

Sold up to June 30, 1853 103,197,356.35 

Disposed of for schools, universities, &c 49, 416, 435 

Disposed of for deaf and dumb asylums 44, 971. 11 

Disposed of for internal improvements 10, 757, 677. 60 

For individuals and companies 279, 792. 07 

For seats of government and public buildings 50, 860 

For military services 24, 841, 979. 83 

Eeserved for salines 422, 325 

Reserved for benefit of Indians 3, 400, 725. 53 

Reserved for companies, individuals, and corporations. .. 8, 955, 383. 75 

Confirmed private claims 8, 923, 903. 21 

Swamp lands disposed of to States 35, 798, 254. 66 

Railroads 6,024,573 

252,114,237 11 

Total unsold and unappropriated of offered and unoffered 

lands, June 30, 1853 1, 139,366,083 



[Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1853, 1st session 33d Congress, 
pages 44 and 45.] 



29 



£s 



% 






so lO 

2 oo 

£<- 

"** e 
3 

CO S 

00 p* 

£S 

I* 

<o § 

•^ 35 

<*} «o 

■to ^ 

e ** 

^3 °3 

g Co 
>■© ■» 

o 

1 8 



"fe> 



.§■ 



CO 



53 

&5 



a > 



>-3 a 



£-£ 



ei 



6 



gs 



K Oi — 

o S, a 



mocoCi©0)ao©i>G»jOco©Troco>© too 

IrtOOt^ClO'— i^OJOCOJI^OOt^Oli— il^ © 00 -<j> 

no— hiocostjoocc© aTco*"— ^*# co cT-T 
coo— igoco-hcooio — as i-~ r^ co oo o oo 



©> i«« 



•^©©COlOCOOCOCOOCOt^ 
C)WMC)!M00I^O^O(-3) 

©cococoa>co©©0"3"0-3< 
co°uo © oo tt^ocT aTaf irT-TcoV-^ 

00(JI!OCOO>C"0^0>0(tO 
OG>}©C!l^— <lO"©(M l O''3' 



— I CO -«J< 

Tf Tf U0 

— '00O5 



-HUOCO©©''**^© 
00 © •— 00©— HO© 
O3O5Tf<©C0^<Mt^ 



--r^coccmououor-ioooaj. 

"^SJ— ' — <?> — 'MS-OOO 

&N oo co i^ <m <> oo as © r-- m 
©J. ao — eo t- o © © ©j 

r-Tp4~oT r^oTco^aTfff i-T 



-co © oo © 
■ io ■* o co 

■ooim« 

' ©J T — CO 

• i© -q- -^ 



Ol Ol 1© 
Ol t^ —1 

©fof©r 

© CO Gi 



ao ©1 

© CO 

l© ©> 

00 © 

00 >© 



.lO©©©©©©©©'*'© 
■ 00©©©©©©©©©© 
•©©©©©©©©©CO© 

• oTcT© ©©©©©©©cT 
.©©©©©©©©©©© 



© © as © © 



©©©© © 

© © © ©1 00 

1© uo ic © a 
©T©f ©fr-Tr-^ 



© © © © 

00 00 X TO 

© © © © 



©©©«©© 
© © rr ■«" © © 
©) © ©} 00 T T 

co"©"© r ~co r ~©~© N 



©©©©©©©©©©©©© 

rj-'rr'j'Tr'TrTroOijooooooooooo 
©©©oo©©©©©©©© 

co co^co rococo©©©©©©© 



oo<>.iC35'* , TfTfr^©co , * , oOTr'rr^©t^ 
00 — ion!^uu*ffi®of3-ciO!Ooto 
TfoiT- . M/; o n T O r- 1 £ ft CT a M i-- 

rj- ©"oo ©i©io-©t^©oo>©oo©505©ro— 1 

©l©t^C7S©COOO©00©©»© — 00 -* ©> ao 

i-T t-T © VfoTt^©" 



S '/) 3 ; 



~ .5 sb £ =d 






; >> 



is «~ r 
htgS 



ss 



c c a 

C V 05 






— « 



A 


> 






a 


1! 




w 


rt 


in 


z; 


C 



5g 



5^2 
S3 
> o 

s-o 







0! 








C 


O 


a 








— 


cd 


p. 


09 




> 


£ 




^2 


0) 


cd 






cd 


a) 






ca: 




"a 


89 


B 


a 


m 






a 


C 






-s 


cd 


a 



c 


^ 


H3 


ED 

(1 


















cd 
ti 


E 


en 




cd 





& 


1/1 



O aj 
eq "3 

0) EG 

So 
se w 

T3 

© a> 
© -3 

© -a 



s s 

§ «*: « 

.-2 M .a 
■* a >- .ti 

■a « =5 

S - s a 

Cy'-t) IS 

=- 2 ^«2 5 
O "S CS >, B 

♦* eo © ■* '-a m 

2 0) «t- g^ 

•a £■= I 5 = 
a w a. a-'S 



a 
a 

•d 2 



P> Q- C 4- r- M 



3 2 
n B 



09 

l«8 • 

CD 2 vj CS 

"" a M "a 

*j re «\ .^ 

b e^ a 
ctSt 
a ^ " = 
at k 73 5 

u C.B.O. 

O'oiS « 
a |-.S 

«'J E B 

ill! 

_J_* ■+- 



30 

B. 

Persons employed by the general government in 1800. 

Treasury Department: 

Number employed in collecting' the external revenue, such as port collectors, 

revenue captains and lieutenants, custom-house officers, &c 1 , 257 

Light-house keepers, inspectors, &c 37 

Number employed in the mint 10 

Clerks in the department at Washington 70 

Total number in Treasury Department 1, 374 

State Department, including diplomatic corps 112 

Persons employed in Pension Office 37 

Persons employed in Land Office - 8 

Persons employed in Indian Office 19 

Purveyor of Public Supplies..* . 4 

Total 68 

War Department, exclusive of army - . 17 

Navy Department, exclusive of navy 17 

Judiciary ,-.. 107 

Post Office Department : 

Clerks at Washington, 10; deputy postmasters, 906; whole number employed 

in Post Office Department . 916 

Miscellaneous appointments 9 

Whole number employed by general government 3, 806 

Persons employed by the general government in 1854. 

The Department of 

Treasury 3,245 

Post Office... 30,480 

Interior 707 

War 232 

Judiciary 238 

Navy 263 

State 256 

Whole number of persons employed by general government, excluding army and navy. 35, 456 



31 

c. 

Natives of the old States residing in the land States, as per census U. S. 
for 1850, with the natives of New York specially therein resident* 



Where resident. 



Alabama.. 
Arkansas. . 
California. 
Florida — 
Illinois ... 
Indiana . . . 

Iowa 

Louisiana . 
Michigan. . 
Mississippi 
Missouri ., 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 



'3 


K T3 


cC as 


© T3 a o a 
,c rr •- -*> S 




O «3 


'S rt 


+3 © © 


3 „• 


^ © 


P. 4-> 

© 02 


of 
the 
iding 
tates 
e b 




a 


C 33 


cor *3 o 


o © 


° fcr 




© ^-Ocj^ 


© 

s 


ives 
sidin 
ates. 


© ° 


P<*i a » s * 


+» a ^ 


-w © 


© a3 -u — — O 


s 


^ Sec 


l* +3 


Sh S OQ ~ t3 ©, 


fc 


fei 


fc 


Ph 


151,915 


1,443 


420, 032 


Over J 


26, 787 


537 


160, 345 


About £ 


34, 808 


10, 160 


69,610 


About £ 


21,875 


614 


45, 320 


Nearly £ 


199, 780 


67, 180 


736, 931 


About f- 


179, 242 


24,310 


931, 392 


Nearly \ 


43, 254 


8,134 


170, 620 


About | 


30, 527 


5,510 


205, 921 


About f 


182, 618 


133, 756 


341,591 


Over £ 


79, 366 


952 


291,114 


Over £ 


84, 398 


5,040 


520, 826 


Over £ 


508, 672 


83, 979 


1, 757, 556 


Nearly £ 


109, 932 


68, 595 


197, 912 


Over £ 


1, 653, 174 


410,210 


5, 849, 170 


More than | and 
less than £ 



House of Representatives, May 29, 1854. 

Mr. Perkins — Sir : In reply to your inquiry concerning the state of the business referred 
to the Committee on Private Land Claims, I have to inform you that the claims referred to 
that committee this session amount to over one hundred. They have been referred at diifer- 
ent times during the whole course of the session. Early in the session, while the committees 
were called for reports, there were but few claims pending before the committee, and we 
were able to report upon them to the House nearly as fast as they were referred. At a later 
period of the session, the committees not being called, we have not been able to report. 
The committee have agreed upon many reports, which are ready to be reported whenever 
there is an opportunity of doing so. The Committee on Private Land Claims has not been 
called since the 6th of February last, because the morning hour since that time has been con- 
sumed by other business ; and. I am not able to give an opinion as to when our committee 
will be again called. 

Respectfully, 

JUNIUS HILLYER, 
Chairman Committee on Private Land Claims. 



Committee Room Committee of Claims, House Representatives, 

May 25, 1854. 

Sir : During the 32d Congress, there were referred to the Committee of Claims 442 cases. 
The number acted upon by the committee was 187, although the actual number was much 
larger ; the committee frequently passing upon classes of cases which were disposed of by 
one bill or one adverse report. But a very small number of the cases acted upon were ever 
reported to the House, for the reason that the committee was not called for reports. The 
"morning hour," devoted by the rules to the calling of committees for reports, was consumed, 
for a great part of the first session, by the Committe of Public Lands. The precise time I do 
not know, but believe it to have been nearly five months. I think the Committee of Claims 
were not called for reports after the 1st March in the first session of the 32d Congress. 



32 

This denial of justice to private claimants was occasioned by permitting other committees to 
put the bills reported by them upon their passage, and particularly the Committee of Public 
Lands. 

A large number of cases have been acted upon by this committee during the present session 
of this Congress. The number now ready to be reported is 84 ; but the committee has not 
been called for reports since February, and probably will not be called for months ; certainly 
not, if other committees are permitted to put bills upon their passage. 
I am, very respectfully, yours, 

N. P. EDGERTON, Chairman. 
Hon. John Perkins, Jr., 

House of Representatives. 



Washington, May 21, 1854. 

Dear Sir : In obedience to your request, I state it as my deliberate opinion, that during 
the sixteen years I have served in Congress, at least one third of the entire time of that body 
has been consumed in the consideration of questions connected, in one form or other, with our 
public land system. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

LINN BOYD. 
Hon. John Perkins, Jr. 



Washington, April 27, 1854. 

My Dear Sir : In compliance with the request contained in your note, I have the honor to 
reply that from the most careful examination which could be made, with the efficient aid of 
Mr. Buck, taking the two sessions of the 32d Congress as the best guide, the cost of the de- 
bates on the question of the public lands, in the Senate and House of Representatives, as pub- 
lished in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, and in the Congressional Globe for that 
Congress, was about $149,145. The statement subjoined is submitted to your consideration: 

1, 500 columns of the Congressional Globe devoted to debates on public lands. 
299 senators, members, and delegates. 
2£ hours allowed for consideration. 
10 columns allowed for an hour speech. 
7£ dollars per column for reporting in the Daily Globe. 

10)1, 500 

]50 hour speeches. 
60 days spent in consideration of public lands. 

$2, 392 expense of daily session. 
60 days spent. 



143, 520 expense of Congress for 60 days. 
5, 625 expense of reporting. 

149, 145 



This estimate includes the debates in the 32d Congress on the homestead, assignability of 
land warrants, for railroad grants, and on the proposal to grant lands to the indigent insane. 
It is not too high, because we have not included the speeches made on other subjects of legis- 
lation while the House was in committee of the whole on some one of the various projects 
connected with the disposition of the public lands, and which would have been made on other 
bills in committee. 

The estimate enclosed is lower than the probable average cost of the debates on the land 
question in the present Congress, judging from such an examination as I have been enabled 
to make, so far as the debate has gone. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

JOHN W. FORNEY, 
Clerk House of Representatives United States. 
Hon. John Perkins, Jr. 




048 343 i 






